JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral).:- The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.12.2008, passed by the Director Consolidation, withdrawing 5 kanals and 3 marlas from the land allotted to the petitioners during consolidation proceedings. 2. An application was filed by respondents no.4 to 6, before the Director for making good the deficiency, in their land by pleading that on account of an incorrect demarcation of the “bandh”, they have been allotted less land. The petitioners arrayed the “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” as a party. The Director Consolidation, ordered the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Karnal, to demarcate the land and submit a report. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, demarcated the land and submitted a report dated 26.12.2008, pointing out a deficiency of 5 kanals and 2 marlas in block ‘A’ allotted to respondents no. 4 to 6 etc. and excess land allotted to the petitioners. The Director Consolidation, accepted the report, allowed the petition filed under Section 42, and ordered that shortfall, in the land allotted to respondents no.4 to 6, be made good from land allotted to the petitioners. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners were present during demarcation, they were neither arrayed as parties nor served, with a notice before the Director Consolidation accepted the demaration report. The petitioners have been deprived of their land, without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing. The impugned order should be set aside and the Director Consolidation should be directed to decide the matter afresh after granting the petitioners an opportunity to establish that they have not been allotted excess land. 4. Counsel for the private respondents submits that as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” was impleaded as a party, service was effected by proclamation. The petitioners were duly served as they appeared before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, during proceedings for demarcation. It was for the petitioners to thereafter pursue the matter before the Director Consolidation and raise objections against the demarcation report. It is further submitted that as per the record, even if land is retrieved from the land allotted to the petitioners, their entitlement would not be diminished. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Service by proclamation, is a valid mode of service if the “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” (the village proprietary body) is impleaded as a party. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Service by proclamation, is a valid mode of service if the “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” (the village proprietary body) is impleaded as a party. Where, however, land is sought to be retrieved from private ownership, an opportunity has to be granted to the owner to show cause against the proposed action. The Director Consolidation was required to serve a notice upon the petitioners, affording them an opportunity to file objections to the demarcation report. In the absence of any such, notice or opportunity to file objections against the demarcation, the order passed by the Director Consolidation is violative of principles of natural justice and must, therefore, be set aside. 6. As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 31.12.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director Consolidation, to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law, within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to file objections against the demarcation report. 7. During the pendency of proceedings, before the Director Consolidation, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to ownership and possession. -------------------------